animal rights Medicine has come a very long way since the dayswhen men used to puncture holes into the skull torelease tension or evil spirits. In the last onehundred years, for the sake of humanity, numerousvaccinations have been developed, disease and disordersof all types have been prevented, surgical techniqueshave been advanced, drugs have been developed to cureailments and the list continues endlessly. Theprogress that has been achieved in knowledge as well assafety in medical practice is correlated directly toanimal research. It is one argument to control animalresearch so that needless death of animals are notrendered, but it is absolutely different to argue thatanimals have rights which supersede human subsistence. "For most of the past decade, the animal-rightsmovement hasn't merely opposed animal research; it has tried to destroy it." ( The Wall Street Journal ,"Animals and Sickness", Page 378.) Animal rightsadvocates and activists generally have ethicalobjections regarding treatment of animals duringexperimentation, but the use of animals in research forthe benefit of all people is and always will be justifiable. Over 99 percent of all animal experiments are onrats and mice developed expressly for laboratory use. "Less than 1 percent of experiments involve cats, dogs,farm animals, nonhuman primates, frogs, fish, andbirds." ( Encyclopedia of Medicine, AMA , "AnimalExperimentation", Page 110.) Animal rights advocatestry to sway public opinion by showing grotesquepictures of destroyed cats, dogs, farm animals,dolphins, and monkeys which account for less than 1percent of the experiments, yet it seems 99 percent oftheir advertising and campaigning deal with this onepercent. At least the American public realizes eventhose who portray ethical righteousness can be wrong. For instance, " an American Medical Association ( AMA ) poll found that 77 percent of adults think that using


animals in medical research is necessary." ( The Wall Street Journal , "Animals and Sickness", Page 378.) It is a curious thing to see animal welfare groupstry to hinder animal research by threateningresearchers lives and destroying years of datacollected. Animal rights groups are promoting evenmore animal testing because the same tests will have tobe repeated to replace the lost data. In every majormedical research university there have been some formof nuisance to deter animal testing whether it was a quiet riot or endangering the lives of researchers. Animal rights groups must realize research is doneout of necessity for human welfare. Whenever possiblealternatives to animal experiments are used. "Thedevelopment of modern research techniques, such as CATscans, PET scans, needle biopsies, and tissue cultures"( Stephen Kaufman, M.D., Breakthroughs Don't RequireTorture , Page 380.) allow researchers to thoroughlyexhaust their options before testing on animals. In this age where fiscal conservatism is a priority even when human lives are concerned, researchers are doingtheir part to conserve. It takes a lot of time, money,and care to take care of animals that are going to besubjects of tests. "No responsible scientist wouldincur the substantial expense and devote theconsiderable space required for housing and caring ofanimals when other equally satisfactory models wereavailable." (Michael E. DeBackey, Holding Human Health Hostage , Page 361.) Contributions resulting from animal research aretoo numerous to mention. All that can be said iswithout testing and researching on animals human liveswould have been lost, medical technology would havebeen tremendously delayed, and future breakthroughswill be nearly impossible. When we consider thediseases that used to terrorize our society 100 or even50 years ago, its a blessing to realize animals aresimilar to humans in biology; That we can confirmstudies of medical and surgical methods before it is carried out on people. Animal research saves lives.

Related Essays on Animal Testing